gmalivuk wrote:Do you similarly argue that "radar" is most correct as "ray-dee-ay-are"?

No, that one's an acronym.

Why is that an acronym but "sudo" isn't?

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

They both are, since we pronounce them. My point is simply that if "su" is "ess-you", and we turn it into "sue" because that's convenient, then we might as well do the same to "sudo" and turn it into "pseudo". If you're not going to do the efficient thing, then the other option is doing the correct thing, which in my opinion is "ess-you-doo".

"Sue-doo" is neither convenient (in my opinion) nor correct (in my opinion (and, if indeed the stuff Xenomortis linked is correct, then also in the opinion of the person who created the command in the first place)).

eviloatmeal wrote:the correct thing, which in my opinion is "ess-you-doo".

Yes, but the queation you keep failing to address is Why?

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

I realized something, that if it was "su do". That is program su with an option do. I would have pronounced it "sue-doo". But it isn't, and so I don't. When there is no space, I treat it as a single word, and the easiest single word for "sudo" is "sue-doe", not "sue-doo". Not only is it easier to pronounce (for me anyway), it is also shorter and doesn't introduce a space that isn't there.

For this reason, I find pronouncing it "sue-doo" the odd duckling here. Just as I do not pronounce "thermometer" as "thermo meter" (rather as "ther-mom-i-ter"), I do not pronounce "sudo" as "sue-doo".

The difference is that there's no "Ra" by itself that has its own status as either an acronym or an abbreviation. "Radar" is an acronym attached to a top-level phrase. "Sudo" is composed of the command "su", which is already an (in my opinion) abbreviation, ergo (I feel that) it's absurd to classify "sudo" as either, and the "proper" way to speak it is instead "ess-you-doo" - without turning what's already an abbreviation into a nested abbreviation / acronym. It's a slippery slope into "W(I(s) N(ot) (an) E(mulator)) I(s) N(ot) (an) E(mulator)" territory. But for convenience's sake, we don't need to keep saying "ess-you-doo" - we can pronounce it the way it seems natural to me, which, as I already explained, is "pseudo".

For one, radar is partly composed of syllables and letters. That seems fairly typical of acronyms, and not consistent with "S.U.".

The fact that it is only two letters, and/or that it would become a monosyllabic word* is also not typical of acronyms. Radar is two syllables.

But sudo is two syllables, too. Who cares that the "su" part is already a command on its own?

If you have an aesthetic preference about how you typically like to see acronyms formed, just come out and say so. Otherwise this is just so much special pleading.

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

The difference is that there's no "Ra" by itself that has its own status as either an acronym or an abbreviation. "Radar" is an acronym attached to a top-level phrase. "Sudo" is composed of the command "su", which is already an (in my opinion) abbreviation, ergo (I feel that) it's absurd to classify "sudo" as either, and the "proper" way to speak it is instead "ess-you-doo" - without turning what's already an abbreviation into a nested abbreviation / acronym.

What about UNESCO, UNICEF etc? Also an amalgamation of acronyms, but pronounced as a single word?

But as was already said, yes, the language isn't supposed to be consistent, so one should just pronouce as they like.

Like sudo, they start with two letters that, alone, are never pronounced as an acronym, and yet when other pronounceable letters are tacked onto the end, we pronounce them as words.

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

gmalivuk wrote:If you have an aesthetic preference about how you typically like to see acronyms formed, just come out and say so.

That's what I'm doing. You're the one demanding some sort of justification.

In my opinion aestheticwhatever, "S U Do", or, for short, "pseudo", and all the Nations, no matter how United, are wrong, and can go fuck themselves.

Actually, "UNESCO" and "UNICEF" aren't wrong at all. Even together with "UN", the compression scheme is entirely consistent; they follow the rule of "first letter of every capitalized word in the title".

gmalivuk wrote:If you have an aesthetic preference about how you typically like to see acronyms formed, just come out and say so.

That's what I'm doing. You're the one demanding some sort of justification.

I wanted justification for your claim that it's more correct to do it that way. Your claim that it's more aesthetically pleasing or whatever needs and admits no justification, so if you accept that personal aesthetics is all you're basing your statements on, we're fine.

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

eviloatmeal wrote:I don't have any evidence for the idea that the U in "su" is the first letter of the word "user", as opposed to the letter following the S, but that's my intuition, and that's what I base my beliefs on. If you can find some evidence to the contrary (similar to Steve Wilhite and his "giraffics interchange format" ), then I'll concede that I'm wrong, and that I'm purely pronouncing it the way that feels natural to me, and will also mock whoever came up with a name for a command that rhymes with "doodoo".

eviloatmeal wrote:I don't have any evidence for the idea that the U in "su" is the first letter of the word "user", as opposed to the letter following the S, but that's my intuition, and that's what I base my beliefs on. If you can find some evidence to the contrary (similar to Steve Wilhite and his "giraffics interchange format" ), then I'll concede that I'm wrong, and that I'm purely pronouncing it the way that feels natural to me, and will also mock whoever came up with a name for a command that rhymes with "doodoo".

Didn't I already provide you evidence that "su" stands for superuser?

They arguing superuser vs superuser. Personally, I don't think it matters what it stands for either way, and even if su did originally mean superuser, it makes more sense as switch user and acronyms can change (PHP, WINE).

I get the feeling you keep talking about "semantics" as though it's some trivial consideration that is only tangential to your obvious point and that you shouldn't have to keep fixing it.

But semantics is what your words mean, and so if your words don't actually mean what you want them to, then yes, you should probably fix that or people are going to keep understanding something other than what you want them to.

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

gmalivuk wrote:I get the feeling you keep talking about "semantics" as though it's some trivial consideration that is only tangential to your obvious point and that you shouldn't have to keep fixing it.

Perhaps I took for granted that since the OP asks for an opinion as opposed to many other, similar threads, which call for some sort of objective evaluation, it was not necessary for every statement on the subject to be qualified with "this is an opinion". But you're right, it probably wasn't entirely clear or consistent. As I said, though, I've gone back and added that in a couple of places. Hopefully it's a little less ambiguous now.

While, I normally would argue that a words meaning is rather important. But in the case of a command, I think that what it is used to do is far more important then it's etymology, to the point that it's meaning can be completely disregarded. Though it is certainly interesting to know the meaning (be it "switch user do" or "superuser do" or "superuser do" or "shut up and do this") it's largely irrelevant.

Since I am certain most hear "sudo" and consider what it does when used, rather then any meaning of the word itself.

That or I completely misread the last page of posts and am completely off the current topic.

Oh, okay. I guess that's plausible (although it seems a lot more likely they're just the first two letters).

Personally, I don't think it matters what it stands for either way, and even if su did originally mean superuser, it makes more sense as switch user and acronyms can change (PHP, WINE).

Meh... I don't see any reason to change the meaning. Even now, it's usually used to become superuser. That's the default action; changing to arbitrary users is just additional functionality that it made sense to add to su. If we insist on changing the meaning of su, we'll have to change wc to "whatever count", declare date to be an acronym for "date and time evaluator" and kill to be an acronym for... uh... (well, you get the idea).

'sue-doe' usually (because of most English words + learning to read it before knowing what it meant + never getting corrected on it by anyone like I might with an actual mispronunciation), but sometimes 'ess you do' (because it's a little more descriptive of the command without feeling clunky... I'd never say 'ess you doer' because that's clunky).

Since the whole point of the command is to do something as Super User, it makes sense that the "do" part be pronounced as "doo" and not "doe". Therefore, the correct pronunciation is "sue-doo" and anyone who says otherwise is not only wrong, but also a bad person.

Since both pronunciations unambiguously mean one thing, it makes sense to interpret both as valid ways to describe executing a command as superuser. Therefore, the correct stance is not choosing one over the other and anyone who says otherwise is not only wrong, but also a bad person.

Flumble wrote:Since both pronunciations unambiguously mean one thing, it makes sense to interpret both as valid ways to describe executing a command as superuser. Therefore, the correct stance is not choosing one over the other and anyone who says otherwise is not only wrong, but also a bad person.

Nonsense. There is a correct pronunciation and an incorrect pronunciation. The fact that some people insist on using the incorrect one does not make it correct; it simply makes those people wrong.

Flumble wrote:Since both pronunciations unambiguously mean one thing, it makes sense to interpret both as valid ways to describe executing a command as superuser. Therefore, the correct stance is not choosing one over the other and anyone who says otherwise is not only wrong, but also a bad person.

Nonsense. There is a correct pronunciation and an incorrect pronunciation. The fact that some people insist on using the incorrect one does not make it correct; it simply makes those people wrong.

Suppose that you're right and one of the pronunciations is incorrect and people who use it are wrong. Then what? What can we infer from the fact that they're wrong? It doesn't seem like it would make it harder to understand, at least if one is familiar with the command, since there's not much ambiguity; if one isn't familiar with it, both pronunciations could be misinterpreted; and people who are only familiar with one pronunciation probably aren't all familiar with the same one. And it doesn't seem like it can be reliably used to distinguish those who know what it stands for and those who don't (since some people know what it stands for and still pronounce it sudough, and people who don't know what it stands for might have heard sudoo pronounced by someone else). So what does it mean for them to be "wrong", besides that someone has arbitrarily decided to associate their usage with the word "wrong"?

Flumble wrote:Since both pronunciations unambiguously mean one thing, it makes sense to interpret both as valid ways to describe executing a command as superuser. Therefore, the correct stance is not choosing one over the other and anyone who says otherwise is not only wrong, but also a bad person.

Nonsense. There is a correct pronunciation and an incorrect pronunciation. The fact that some people insist on using the incorrect one does not make it correct; it simply makes those people wrong.

Suppose that you're right and one of the pronunciations is incorrect and people who use it are wrong. Then what?

It means that they have taken up a position on a meaningless subject that runs contrary to the correct position to be taken.

What can we infer from the fact that they're wrong?

The list is endless, really. I mean for starters, they're obviously bad people. Not just factually wrong, but morally wrong; and also "wrong" in the sense that they just aren't quite right. They probably have all sorts of other wrong beliefs about things... it's actually hard to imagine them being right about anything. These are the type of people your parents warn you about - good parents, anyway. And yet, at the same time these are the sort of people that polite people try not to talk about at all - which in itself creates a paradox that is yet another example of what is wrong with them!

It doesn't seem like it would make it harder to understand, at least if one is familiar with the command, since there's not much ambiguity; if one isn't familiar with it, both pronunciations could be misinterpreted; and people who are only familiar with one pronunciation probably aren't all familiar with the same one. And it doesn't seem like it can be reliably used to distinguish those who know what it stands for and those who don't (since some people know what it stands for and still pronounce it sudough, and people who don't know what it stands for might have heard sudoo pronounced by someone else).

Sure - and we could call a cat a dog and say that east is west... but where do we draw the line? That things have names that are commonly agreed upon is a cornerstone of social structure. If we lose that, we lose society and everything falls into chaos.

So what does it mean for them to be "wrong", besides that someone has arbitrarily decided to associate their usage with the word "wrong"?

The list is endless, really. I mean for starters, they're obviously bad people. Not just factually wrong, but morally wrong; and also "wrong" in the sense that they just aren't quite right.

That doesn't solve the problem, though; it just moves it around. What does it mean, in this instance, that they are morally wrong, and what can we infer from this?

They're just terrible people, really. Awful. Centuries from now, when scholars describe to the huddling, frightened massed why oh why the world is a forsaken smoldering place of death and horror, the "people who say Soo-dough" will be mentioned with averted gazed and hushed voices. Or not... it's entirely possible that this isn't nearly as big a deal as all of that... but are YOU willing to risk global annihilation and the doom of human civilization?

They probably have all sorts of other wrong beliefs about things... it's actually hard to imagine them being right about anything.

Maybe you can't imagine it, but that doesn't make it true.

Sure... and maybe the things that crawl between the walls when the sun goes down just want to be your friend...

Between "intended audience understands correctly" and "intended audience does not understand correctly".

Flumble wrote:Since both pronunciations unambiguously mean one thing, it makes sense to interpret both as valid ways to describe executing a command as superuser. Therefore, the correct stance is not choosing one over the other and anyone who says otherwise is not only wrong, but also a bad person.

Nonsense. There is a correct pronunciation and an incorrect pronunciation. The fact that some people insist on using the incorrect one does not make it correct; it simply makes those people wrong.

Flumble wrote:Since both pronunciations unambiguously mean one thing, it makes sense to interpret both as valid ways to describe executing a command as superuser. Therefore, the correct stance is not choosing one over the other and anyone who says otherwise is not only wrong, but also a bad person.

Nonsense. There is a correct pronunciation and an incorrect pronunciation. The fact that some people insist on using the incorrect one does not make it correct; it simply makes those people wrong.

Some here have claimed that soo-dough is easier to pronounce than soo-doo. My first reaction to that claim was perplexity--they both look pretty easy to pronounce--so I decided to put it to the test. I spoke each version aloud ten times as fast as I could while still maintaining correct pronunciation. I did this four times, alternating between starting with soo-doo and starting with soo-dough.

MisterCatSinger wrote:I think the larger issue at stake here is that you people pronounce "do" as "doo" instead of "dew".

...that we pronounce it as /du/ instead of as /du/?

More seriously, though, Wiktionary lists do and doo as homophones for all dialects, even those where doo and dew are pronounced differently, so I'm not sure why you think it should be pronounced dew...

Also the Unix command du should of course be pronounced dee you, not as /du/.

Edit to add: Oh, and I just noticed:

the poll wrote:Sue-doo, you pedestrian!

...what's insult-worthy about saving gas? I think I'll be a pedestrian, and go with su-doe/su-dough

MisterCatSinger wrote:I think the larger issue at stake here is that you people pronounce "do" as "doo" instead of "dew".

...that we pronounce it as /du/ instead of as /du/?

More seriously, though, Wiktionary lists do and doo as homophones for all dialects, even those where doo and dew are pronounced differently, so I'm not sure why you think it should be pronounced dew...

Hehe, yeah I was honestly just confused by the pronunciation of doo, as I'm not a native speaker. I can't really find the phonetic letters I'm looking for here and the comparisons I tried to make don't seem to actually make sense. Apparently you pronounce doo differently than how I thought.

If doo is phonetically /du/ then this is clearly the correct pronunciation of sudo even if it is an acronym. If we can agree that the purpose of language is to convey meaning, we want to emphasize "do" since this is precisely message of the command.